How did the hearing confirm deeply disturbing behavior if they didn’t let ANYONE fully answer any of the questions? As for Apple, I still can’t understand how they can be considered a monopoly if they don’t control the smartphone market? Or how charging 30% is being abusive, when servers, bandwidth, development, et al, costs money, plus any company is trying to make money out of their products. Is there a company out there that sells a product and foregoes absolutely all profits? I doubt it. And if there’s one or some, I doubt they survive for long.
The App Store is where Apple is breaking the law and the bigger and more powerful Apple gets the more it will abuse anti-trust laws
I don’t understand why those imbecile Congress especially this guy Mr. Cicilline didn’t focus on Walmart??? In a small town around 15-30 miles southeast of my hometown, Walmart built a express store there and open...
They remain open until the town last single mama and papa store that been in small town for decades went out of business.
As soon as that store went out of business, Walmart close their “brand new” express store, fire all of their small town employees or transfer them to large store at my hometown and force all of small town residents to drive 30 miles to my hometown to shopping at large Walmart.
That’s a friggin anti-competition! Federal government should bust Wally’s World for what they did to small town business and ruin their revenues!
What's the markup for jewelry stores? It's between 1000% and 2000%.
Speaking of monopolies, There is a monopoly in Congress -- 100% are politicians.
Of course they are. What’s problematic is that almost 100% are far wealthier than the average citizens, don’t know what life is like for average people, and are only interested in maintaining their own privileges, usually by appeasements to corporations and cults.
Apple’s market share is in the low teens for smartphones. “Monopoly”? Hardly.
What Is a Monopoly?
A monopoly refers to when a company and its product offerings dominate a
sector or industry. Monopolies can be considered an extreme result
of free-market capitalism in
that absent any restriction or restraints, a single company or group
becomes large enough to own all or nearly all of the market (goods,
supplies, commodities, infrastructure, and assets) for a particular type
of product or service. The term monopoly is often used to describe an
entity that has total or near-total control of a market.
App stores or app marketplaces are digital distribution platforms for mobile and desktop apps. They offer online users a plethora of apps to browse through, purchase or download for free.
Market share has nothing to do with being a Monopoly. Apple completely controls their own app store and what can and can't be loaded onto their hardware. I have zero issue with this and care nothing about Fortnite or Epic games.Just wanted to add this info because I keep seeing this go back and forth.
What I don't get is why developers don't pass this 30% apple tax onto us? Charge more to get what you wanted in the first place. Much like with medical insurances.. hospitals and care providers charge more to get what they originally wanted from insurance. A dental cleaning is normally $80.00.. they send a charge to insurance for $100.00 knowing that insurance is only going to pay 80%. So they get their $80.00 that they originally wanted and insurance only pays the % they are obligated to pay. Crude example but I am sure you get the point. Another example is Youtube Premium.. when I first signed up few years back it was $12.99 a month as a recurring subscription through the app store. A little later I found out that it was $9.99 if I paid Google directly as they pass the extra 30% onto the customer. Prices on Googles side have since changed but this was just another example.
I hear time and time again that we IOS folks actually spend money and that is why EPIC and other developers want to have their product on the app store. I wouldn't mind paying a bit more to ease the 30% burden on smaller developers?
Epic can go kick rocks as they make a killing on console sales and are just looking to bleed every last cent out of these kids and young adults that play Fortnite game.
Its not knowing,..... What is monopoly?, that a lot of people are so ignorant about. It's not knowing,.......What is a market or marketplace?, that a lot people are so ignorant about.
iOS user is not a market. X-Box users is not a market. Android users is not a market. PlayStations users is not a market. PC users is not a market. Mac users is not a market. Costco members is not market.
If Apple has a monopoly with iOS, then MS has a monopoly with X-Box and Sony has a monopoly with PlayStations, Costco has a monopoly with Costco members and Burger King has a monopoly with The Whopper.
Game consoles is a market. Buyers has 3 main ones to choose from. If they don't like the games available on one of them, they can buy the other. But they can't complain that a certain game is not available on the X-Box and say the MS is abusing the monopoly they have with X-Box users. They can always buy the consoles that has the games they want. If they have to own all 3, so be it. They have choices.
Developer can not complain that they have to pay separate licenses to develop games for each of the consoles. They can't complain about any of the rules they must follow. If they don't like it, develop for another console. They to have choices. One can not say that because a developer wants to develop for the X-Box, but don't like MS rules, that it leaves the developer no choice but to complain about the monopoly MS have with the X-Box. They still have the choice to not develop for the X-Box and develop for the other consoles.
Mobile device platform is a market. The platform is the mobile OS, not the hardware. People can choose the platform most suited for them. They are not forced into any one of the platforms, other than by their own necessity. They can choose to switch or use both, at any time. A choice doesn't have to be convenient or cost effective, it just has to be a choice.
Developers can choose to develop for one or both mobile platforms, it's their choice to make. They are not forced to develop for any one of them. If they don't like the terms of one platform, then they have the choice to develop for the other one. If their terms are also not acceptable, they can develop for any of the game consoles. No way should the mobile platforms be force to change their terms for any developer because of the claim that they have a monopoly with accessing their own customers. No way should one platform be force to changed it terms because of what the other platform allows. Two separate platforms, two sets of rules.
With the way some of these ignorant people are thinking, their logic would see nothing wrong with people buying tickets to a ball game and then start selling bags of peanuts in the stand because the fans there has the right to buy brands of peanuts, other than what the ballpark sells. And the ballpark should be grateful as having more selections of brands of peanuts, is the only reason why there are so many fans in the ballpark to begin with.
How did the hearing confirm deeply disturbing behavior if they didn’t let ANYONE fully answer any of the questions? As for Apple, I still can’t understand how they can be considered a monopoly if they don’t control the smartphone market? Or how charging 30% is being abusive, when servers, bandwidth, development, et al, costs money, plus any company is trying to make money out of their products. Is there a company out there that sells a product and foregoes absolutely all profits? I doubt it. And if there’s one or some, I doubt they survive for long.
Not a monopoly. Developers have multiple platforms and app stores to sell their goods on.
Apple can no more have a monopoly on their own store than McDonald’s can on its store, barring sushi vendors. Or Sony on PlayStations, charging licensing fees, store fees, etc.
Microsoft has much higher share and control over desktops OSes, why are they not on this list?
Well if it is as I understand Apple representing it is about ensuring a positive customer experience, I ask if both app and non app store options might coexist, and the free market can decide?
Those wanting to play it safe and finding value in a 30% 'insurance' premium and convenience have the Apple option, and those who prefer direct sales and in fact not wanting to give more data points to Apple about their every online move also have that choice...
I for one with what I know would prefer non T2 storage, easily upgradable ram, and a right to repair, either OEM at a premium for quality assurance and speed, or DIY if I feel I have skills, time, inclination and in some cases faster than a repair shop queue...
This is not why we buy Apple, we understand the benefits of concession. Other platforms provide what you’d looking for and all the nastiness it creates.
I'd have to disagree having bought macs since the Plus that could have their drives and RAM upgraded either OEM or aftermarket...
Let's not forget all of this seemed to really start when Apple started increasingly (and very successfully) monetizing everything after 2011, including annual acceleration of macOS 'churn' vs upgrade on merit, the locked down 2013 'pro' which Apple admitted as a mistake, and on it goes... Concession seems the current corporate choice given shareholder vs stakeholder law, the latter of which would presumably include those customers with long time investments in workflows and product expectations. Indeed currently our only option is to say no thanks, and at what cost...? At what point does the public utility or essential service argument come into question, which some have argued for internet services, especially during pandemic times ? Is the question of monopoly vested in size vs revenues, and in 'meaningful' competition? Is this reasonable to (re)consider from time to time, as is repairability, and the legal (im)balances consumers face? Might this include lengthy, technical and sometimes vague or far reaching EULAs that are non-negotiable as take it or leave it - I ask if perhaps an additional boundary or concept may be 'unjust enrichment'... I ask this as a current shareholder and customer of many years... Let the flames begin...
Well if it is as I understand Apple representing it is about ensuring a positive customer experience, I ask if both app and non app store options might coexist, and the free market can decide?
Those wanting to play it safe and finding value in a 30% 'insurance' premium and convenience have the Apple option, and those who prefer direct sales and in fact not wanting to give more data points to Apple about their every online move also have that choice...
I for one with what I know would prefer non T2 storage, easily upgradable ram, and a right to repair, either OEM at a premium for quality assurance and speed, or DIY if I feel I have skills, time, inclination and in some cases faster than a repair shop queue...
Sorry, but you don't get to determine how a product is made, that's up to the company making it. If they want to sell their product with proprietary components, that's fine. Either you buy their product or you don't. There's no law that says a product has to be made in a certain way, it only has to conform to certain manufacturing rules but that's it. As for a computer being upgradeable, show me a law that requires computer manufacturers to do this. There isn't one. Again, it's a choice made by the manufacturer.
As for the app store, I still have problems with politicians and certain users trying to force a company to open up their platform to others. Apple is not a monopoly, they just have great products that people want to buy and I say 99.999% of these people are fine with there being only one Apple App Store. That way, we/they know what they're getting instead of having to worry about someone selling they crap like on the many android app stores. Remember 30% is not a premium. Google charges that and let's not even forget that that's a low overhead cost for most companies selling anything. I want to see a chart showing overhead operational costs for clothing manufacturers, especially show companies, pharmaceuticals and oil companies.
Wow one asks a question or expresses a desire and is accused of trying to determine how a company makes their products, in the context of an article suggesting Apple may be doing exactly that ?
To be fair I don't know 'the crap like on many of the android app store' however on the desktop we can buy software that isn't controlled, monitored or delivered by an app store if we choose to, and that seems to be working well, at least for me... A recent desktop challenge seemed actually caused by the app store with a legacy OS install which, to use your term 'crapped out' on OS updates requiring hunting down the various discrete downloads and doing a manual sequential install instead.
Comments
They remain open until the town last single mama and papa store that been in small town for decades went out of business.
As soon as that store went out of business, Walmart close their “brand new” express store, fire all of their small town employees or transfer them to large store at my hometown and force all of small town residents to drive 30 miles to my hometown to shopping at large Walmart.
Don’t even get me started on jewelry...
iOS user is not a market. X-Box users is not a market. Android users is not a market. PlayStations users is not a market. PC users is not a market. Mac users is not a market. Costco members is not market.
If Apple has a monopoly with iOS, then MS has a monopoly with X-Box and Sony has a monopoly with PlayStations, Costco has a monopoly with Costco members and Burger King has a monopoly with The Whopper.
Game consoles is a market. Buyers has 3 main ones to choose from. If they don't like the games available on one of them, they can buy the other. But they can't complain that a certain game is not available on the X-Box and say the MS is abusing the monopoly they have with X-Box users. They can always buy the consoles that has the games they want. If they have to own all 3, so be it. They have choices.
Developer can not complain that they have to pay separate licenses to develop games for each of the consoles. They can't complain about any of the rules they must follow. If they don't like it, develop for another console. They to have choices. One can not say that because a developer wants to develop for the X-Box, but don't like MS rules, that it leaves the developer no choice but to complain about the monopoly MS have with the X-Box. They still have the choice to not develop for the X-Box and develop for the other consoles.
Mobile device platform is a market. The platform is the mobile OS, not the hardware. People can choose the platform most suited for them. They are not forced into any one of the platforms, other than by their own necessity. They can choose to switch or use both, at any time. A choice doesn't have to be convenient or cost effective, it just has to be a choice.
Developers can choose to develop for one or both mobile platforms, it's their choice to make. They are not forced to develop for any one of them. If they don't like the terms of one platform, then they have the choice to develop for the other one. If their terms are also not acceptable, they can develop for any of the game consoles. No way should the mobile platforms be force to change their terms for any developer because of the claim that they have a monopoly with accessing their own customers. No way should one platform be force to changed it terms because of what the other platform allows. Two separate platforms, two sets of rules.
With the way some of these ignorant people are thinking, their logic would see nothing wrong with people buying tickets to a ball game and then start selling bags of peanuts in the stand because the fans there has the right to buy brands of peanuts, other than what the ballpark sells. And the ballpark should be grateful as having more selections of brands of peanuts, is the only reason why there are so many fans in the ballpark to begin with.
Apple can no more have a monopoly on their own store than McDonald’s can on its store, barring sushi vendors. Or Sony on PlayStations, charging licensing fees, store fees, etc.
Microsoft has much higher share and control over desktops OSes, why are they not on this list?
Let's not forget all of this seemed to really start when Apple started increasingly (and very successfully) monetizing everything after 2011, including annual acceleration of macOS 'churn' vs upgrade on merit, the locked down 2013 'pro' which Apple admitted as a mistake, and on it goes... Concession seems the current corporate choice given shareholder vs stakeholder law, the latter of which would presumably include those customers with long time investments in workflows and product expectations. Indeed currently our only option is to say no thanks, and at what cost...? At what point does the public utility or essential service argument come into question, which some have argued for internet services, especially during pandemic times ? Is the question of monopoly vested in size vs revenues, and in 'meaningful' competition? Is this reasonable to (re)consider from time to time, as is repairability, and the legal (im)balances consumers face? Might this include lengthy, technical and sometimes vague or far reaching EULAs that are non-negotiable as take it or leave it - I ask if perhaps an additional boundary or concept may be 'unjust enrichment'... I ask this as a current shareholder and customer of many years... Let the flames begin...
To be fair I don't know 'the crap like on many of the android app store' however on the desktop we can buy software that isn't controlled, monitored or delivered by an app store if we choose to, and that seems to be working well, at least for me... A recent desktop challenge seemed actually caused by the app store with a legacy OS install which, to use your term 'crapped out' on OS updates requiring hunting down the various discrete downloads and doing a manual sequential install instead.
I ask if it is also about user data for Apple...